Although the public acceptance of the evolution theory and the flat Earth theory is quite different, both of these theories are in stark contradiction with empirical facts, which makes them equally mythical. The reason for the difference in public acceptance lies in the level of scientific knowledge required for the understanding of their mythical nature. Namely, in the case of the flat Earth theory, images from space provided the public with simple observational proof that Earth is not flat but spherical, which made the flat Earth theory very difficult to take seriously. However, in the case of evolution theory, things are not so simple since the general public is not familiar with the empirical or mathematical knowledge about the actual capabilities and constraints of the evolutionary processes. But once this knowledge is revealed, the mythical nature of the evolution theory becomes obvious, just as in the case of the flat Earth theory.

In its most essential form, the evolution theory is an idea according to which the evolutionary processes of mutations, gene migration, natural selection and genetic drift can produce previously non-existent biological functions, like visual or auditory perception, respiration, locomotion, liquid pumping, processing sensory information, inserting, deleting, or replacing DNA sequences, etc. In other words, this idea holds that starting from the first self-replicating organism, which lacked structures like eyes, ears, lungs, gills, joints, heart, brain, RNA splicing machine, etc., these structures came into existence just because mutations, gene migration, natural selection and genetic drift were happening. Since these four processes are factual, i.e. they are known by actual experience or observation, we can use the scientific method to test whether they really can do what the evolutionary idea holds they can do, and in that way determine whether the evolution theory is a valid scientific theory or a pseudoscientific myth equivalent to the flat Earth theory. For that purpose, first we are going to take a look at the longest empirical observation of evolutionary processes in action, which is the E.coli long-term evolution experiment. After that we will determine mathematically whether the evolutionary processes are capable of producing a primitive biological function.

The truth is not dependent on what I personally believe, or on whether I copy/pasted and/or restated it. The truth is that the evolution theory is a myth, which is proved with the linked article. As an administrator, it is up to you to decide whether you want to promote or suppress this.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~FaithPaul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

I stated in the article why I personally see the evolutionary theory as a myth - it ignores the fact of insufficient variations, just as the Flat Earth theory ignores the fact of spherical shape of the Earth. It's pretty simple.

...in the case of evolution theory, things are not so simple since the general public is not familiar with the empirical or mathematical knowledge about the actual capabilities and constraints of the evolutionary processes. But once this knowledge is revealed, the mythical nature of the evolution theory becomes obvious...

So does this mean that though the general public may not understand it, learned men and women should be able to understand it quite well?

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~FaithPaul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

If it is so simple, why is the idea not more widespread among the researchers? What keeps them from seeing the obvious?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~FaithPaul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

I want to respond to you OP but am unable to do so since I am dead. In fact, all of us are dead. Or at least we would be if your analysis had any validity since the process that you determine to be impossible is exactly the process that our adaptive immune cells use to produce antibodies, those pesky little molecular combinations that protect us from invasive pathogens (and many causes of death). At least it’s nice to know that I didn’t die from cancer since your math proves that the molecular modifications required to mutate cells to oncogenic forms is impossible. Thank you for that.

Actually, if you are really interested in how to properly address the mathematics you are attempting you can read about the brilliant work of Andreas Wagner and his team at the University of Zurich, which is described in his very readable book: “Arrival of the Fittest: How Nature Innovates”.

————————————————————There is an old saying: Seeing is believing.This old saying is false.People don’t believe what they are seeing.People believe what they are told they are seeing.

What in the name of god makes you think that the public's level of understanding has anything to do with the truth or falsity of a theory?

I neither think nor have I said anything of the sort. Instead, I suggested that public's level of understanding has everything to do with believing in something. Since the public is not familiar with the empirical or mathematical knowledge about the actual capabilities of the evolutionary processes, it believes that evolution theory is true.

... Or at least we would be if your analysis had any validity since the process that you determine to be impossible is exactly the process that our adaptive immune cells use to produce antibodies, those pesky little molecular combinations that protect us from invasive pathogens...

I never said that the process of molecular recombination is impossible. It is not only possible but factual, just like molecular recombinations in the process of raining or erosion are possible and factual. What I have said (and proved) is that it is impossible for this process to result in "previously non-existent biological functions, like visual or auditory perception, respiration, locomotion, liquid pumping, processing sensory information, inserting, deleting, or replacing DNA sequences, etc." Hence, you committed a logical fallacy, since from the premise: "molecular recombinations are possible or factual", it does not follow "molecular recombinations can result in previously non-existent biological functions". Your argument is like saing: "it is factual that humans can jump - therefore, humans can jump from Earth to the moon."